From nobody Fri Jun 26 03:57:03 2020
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A12DE3A1166 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 03:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.901
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, CTE_8BIT_MISMATCH=0.999, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kn6ZXC9DgRQE for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 03:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B1AC3A08FA for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 03:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id E6065F40739; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 03:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
To: scott@kitterman.com, superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, sm+ietf@elandsys.com, ajs@anvilwalrusden.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: dbuergin@gluet.ch, spfbis@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20200626105645.E6065F40739@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 03:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/l3R4Mi6owp7fiVh_35UG-tjUoC8>
Subject: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (6216)
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spfbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 10:57:02 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7208,
"Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6216

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: David Bürgin <dbuergin@gluet.ch>

Section: A.4

Original Text
-------------
ptr._spf.example.com.  SPF  "v=spf1 -ptr +all"

Corrected Text
--------------
ptr._spf.example.com.  TXT  "v=spf1 -ptr:example.com +all"

Notes
-----
The example in appendix A.4, 'Multiple Requirements Example', does not
work as intended.

In the example, the SPF record at ptr._spf.example.com contains the
directive '-ptr'.

When this directive is evaluated, the <target-name> is equal to
'ptr._spf.example.com'. An input <ip> such as 192.0.2.10, which has a
PTR record pointing to 'example.com', will fail to match, as that domain
is not equal to nor a subdomain of 'ptr._spf.example.com'. In other
words, given the DNS setup of appendix A, there are no inputs that
fulfil the requirement for matching this ptr mechanism.

The example can be fixed by supplying an appropriate <domain-spec>:
replace '-ptr' with '-ptr:example.com'.

Instructions:
-------------
This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7208 (draft-ietf-spfbis-4408bis-21)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1
Publication Date    : April 2014
Author(s)           : S. Kitterman
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : SPF Update
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG


From nobody Fri Jun 26 09:41:35 2020
Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E82B43A0969 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 09:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.851
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=Ot3P6JnI; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=cHuMkoA0
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tXNn-2wKhAPk for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 09:41:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:43:6f73:7461]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5B2B3A096B for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 09:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 28091 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2020 16:41:11 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=6db9.5ef62527.k2006; bh=TzTqSutex+PyFxiZIFaz/441bSuOtDNn9DM73r4x3/s=; b=Ot3P6JnIjz1vtXvTNLvDY1vjcADxzlYNzHU+X5RpyJhBKTamI8i3PN2lH3jYrrPXlbU82KnFhpVvAGBr78UIidwWV2OwDuu00HrhVtb0adm1CDszPZ+hU5GyEd4D5oS+Esby2FmwP1YCM6arQDhoYoFM7HvfQ/Q3K7O28xKY8jMEOE53m6T3xbSaHN+kHD1SeBz16BEmPrifZHnc8UcZ4muPWwXKyycfa264udop0MLHkJwDOh1kw7RAUr2R7Xq5
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=6db9.5ef62527.k2006; bh=TzTqSutex+PyFxiZIFaz/441bSuOtDNn9DM73r4x3/s=; b=cHuMkoA0kvXBG0zqz2hDnlqzVxzZ4xQn90r52XKV8KirWkce8zMyV6Wuo+wPfLeNQGNcInsNQ5an4PlayYcSKhCIzb9K2ombQM0HXORDqarKovNY0mCzNgU2I/GX2nnIa90Ro46KCnfCJIUa3MdQrjkQDg0yA0cz4H9haJiAZXvQCP7uB9MZDPv6IAvOTQLgA1x4tE7jocFnwcI3MMqldlwmleaiWSHE6XPSr8oHHkFRvJ5wKJ/KHxw//lgsVzcg
Received: from ary.qy ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTP via TCP6; 26 Jun 2020 16:41:11 -0000
Received: by ary.qy (Postfix, from userid 501) id 442A01BB8C8F; Fri, 26 Jun 2020 12:41:11 -0400 (EDT)
Date: 26 Jun 2020 12:41:11 -0400
Message-Id: <20200626164111.442A01BB8C8F@ary.qy>
From: "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com>
To: spfbis@ietf.org
Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
In-Reply-To: <20200626105645.E6065F40739@rfc-editor.org>
Organization: Taughannock Networks
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/StuxPl6esQnFkjwflmJU_43iNbQ>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7208 (6216)
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spfbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 16:41:17 -0000

He's right, the example in the RFC doesn't work. Just reminds us how
hard it is to get this stuff right, particularly after zillions of
rounds of editing and eyes glazing.

R's,
John


In article <20200626105645.E6065F40739@rfc-editor.org> you write:
>The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7208,
>"Sender Policy Framework (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in Email, Version 1".
>
>--------------------------------------
>You may review the report below and at:
>https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6216
>
>--------------------------------------
>Type: Technical
>Reported by: David Bürgin <dbuergin@gluet.ch>
>
>Section: A.4
>
>Original Text
>-------------
>ptr._spf.example.com.  SPF  "v=spf1 -ptr +all"
>
>Corrected Text
>--------------
>ptr._spf.example.com.  TXT  "v=spf1 -ptr:example.com +all"
>
>Notes
>-----
>The example in appendix A.4, 'Multiple Requirements Example', does not
>work as intended.
>
>In the example, the SPF record at ptr._spf.example.com contains the
>directive '-ptr'.
>
>When this directive is evaluated, the <target-name> is equal to
>'ptr._spf.example.com'. An input <ip> such as 192.0.2.10, which has a
>PTR record pointing to 'example.com', will fail to match, as that domain
>is not equal to nor a subdomain of 'ptr._spf.example.com'. In other
>words, given the DNS setup of appendix A, there are no inputs that
>fulfil the requirement for matching this ptr mechanism.
>
>The example can be fixed by supplying an appropriate <domain-spec>:
>replace '-ptr' with '-ptr:example.com'.